Corporate control should never supersede authorial intent

I'm going to write Peter Parker as a character who exclusively has sex with underage spiders. I'm the author, so it's impossible for my ideas to be retarded.

desu sometimes a limitation on production will produce an even better result than the original intent. the circumvention of these boundaries show a creative and well thought mind can elevate a work.
actual spiders or the knockoff spidergang because those are two different stories.

As long as you write it well, nothing else matters.

Actual spiders.

oh god no peter you cradle robber

Attached: 2c1583507dc8bc04dec21d80d6e1d979.jpg (990x750, 123.23K)

It's conceptually, fundamentally retarded. Like your viewpoint. You want authorial intent, write original characters in a novel. Which Moore tried and no one gave a shit because all he's ever going to be is a guy who wrote comics.

How is a premise in a void retarded?

It's not in a void, as it relates to established characters anyway. You can deconstruct Sherlock Homles by revealing he's had down syndrome the entire time and Moriarty is just his caretaker that sets up these elaborate mysteries to entertain him, it could Eben be well written. It's still retarded.

>It's still retarded
How? Why? In what way? Just saying it is doesn't make it so.

oh god, you reminded me of all those LOST EPISODE CREEPYPASTA where the main characters are actually people in an asylum or dead kids or some shit. I hate those.

It's uncessary and tramples over the works of those who have built that characters. Because you could write it without using established characters but the no one would read your garbage stories. I will say that Watchmen is different.

>As someone who doesn't know much about the intended Charlton characters, how much character assassination would have happened if Moore did the Watchmen story with them?

The Charlton pitch was printed in Absolute Watchmen.

Captain Atom's origin & military background from the Charlton comics was intact. Moore mainly focused on his powers in the pitch, mentioning that Captain Atom doesn't age, how that affects his view of the world, and he starts becoming distant (like Dr Manhattan).
Peter Cannon was hinted at doing exactly the same thing Ozymandias did.
The Question in the pitch is like Rorschach in that he was going to go underground and still crimefighting against the law (Keene Act or something like it still would've happened), and cut off contact with others such as Blue Beetle. Moore hadn't figured out how Vic Sage's status as a TV news reporter would factor into this, or didn't mention it in the pitch.
Ted Kord would've had a form of PTSD from his superhero years; one example Moore gives is that at a restaurant, a retired Ted starts getting suspicious and thinking all the employees at a restaurant are part of a supervillain conspiracy or something and then embarrasses himself after going into action and finding out it wasn't real.
Moore doesn't say much about Dan Garret or Dan Garrett, but since he considers Captain Atom to be the first superhero without artificial means, I think it means he was going to go with the original 40s cop Dan Garret. Moore mentions that Ted stops by to talk with Dan from time to time which sounds like he's ignoring 60s Dan's fate and powers.
Peacemaker would've just done internal investigation and spying, as opposed to political assassinations. It was only when Moore was no longer using Peacemaker that he and Gibbons came up with Comedian who was a cross between G. Gordon Liddy, Nick Fury, and what Moore researched about the CIA and all that.
Moore didn't have any idea what to do with Nightshade yet.

>It's uncessary and tramples over the works of those who have built that characters.
In what way? I'm sure that the original creators can handle a deconstruction without crying about it.
>Write it without using established characters
What's wrong with using established characters?
>i will say that Watchmen is different.
Because....?

He could, but it would have been not that important.

You mean like Moore does everytime they write a shitty add on to his story?

desu saying BRO SUPERMAN MEETS DOCTOR MANHATTAN AND THE BATMAN FINDS THE COMEDIAN'S BUTTON doesn't instill confidence in an author that you understand why the work worked.

>He's now having to dodge
How is watchmen different and what is wrong with using established characters? Especially when it does nothing to effect them?

I wonder how much this would evolve into the Watchmen story even if he were able to keep the Charlton characters.

It's different because he bothered to make the original characters even though they're heavily based on other ones. Amd using established characters always effects them. He's the one who seems to take issue with it, he's repeatedly called it creatively bankrupt as it relates to his characters. Rules for thee but not for me.

How does it affect them in any way that matters to you or the fans?

Not that guy but where are you going with this? How will this prove that "character assasination doesn't exist"?

Because the version of the character you like will always be there. There's nothing that can be done to a character that will "ruin" them. Because they aren't real.

Peacemaker was going to still be killed off, because that was how the story was pitched, something like "Who Killed the Peacemaker?" and it'd be a murder mystery, just as Watchmen was. Moore had the idea of doing a superhero murder mystery before he used the Charlton characters, he was thinking of using the MLJ/Red Circle heroes at first (The Shield, The Hangman, etc).

Thunderbolt would've still did something, maybe the squid or whatever, and also likely would killed much of New York City, as Ozymandias did.

All the Silk Spectre stuff wouldn't be there because at the time Moore didn't know a thing about Nightshade yet. When he was told to do his own thing, he took influence from Phantom Lady and Black Canary instead of doing anything similar to Nightshade. About the only thing that Nightshade and Laurie share is that they're the love interest of the atomic superhero (Captain Atom/Dr Manhattan).

From the sound of the pitch, it didn't seem like Peacemaker was going to be like Comedian, like he wouldn't be a rapist or attempted rapist, or do political assassinations.

But there are obviously actions that can derail a characterization you like and take the character in a direction that makes it difficult to return to that characterization.

In what way???

Bump

NTA, but don't be so fucking disingenuous. The exact thing has been happening to Batman since the 80s. He's even changed since in the 00s, becoming this autistic fuck who's obsessed with stopping any form of killing from happening around him--even when it stops making any sort of sense.

And that version of Batman--the brooding asshole who's more willing to attack his adopted kid than let a homicidal maniac die--is the one that the public knows best; which leads to DC making more of that version of him.

See how this works?

The issue is that the characters would be killed so wouldn't be available for stories afterwards. And this was coming out right after Crisis so they didn't want alternate earths.

Still, it feels like they could have come up with some excuse, like this being a pre-crisis world, and then they could pick up whatever new takes they liked and integrate into the main world.

found the shill

this user probably jacks off to marvel shitting on beast

Yeah, could've just been an elseworld, but I don't think the concept was as common back then.

>See how this works?
No, I don't. The versions of a character that you like will always be there. And then there's always fanfiction. The character isn't real and nothing is set in stone.

>would have been more revolutionary
Watchmen is still a plague on this industry we haven't been able to get away from. It doesn't need to be more revolutionary when every hack writer in comics is trying to copy it.

corporate control should never supersede ANYTHING, let alone what a writer says.

corporations = tyranny

>The versions of a character that you like will always be there.
Yeah. And it's not unreasonable for fans such as myself to expression frustration at the fact that the best version of a character has a severely sparse library in comparison to the oodles of the modern, shittier take that's been released ever since.

What even is your point, that people shouldn't be mad at poorly-written takes on characters they like? What a spineless mentality that would be.

Those stories will always exist but sometimes major character decisions shift away from the creation of similar stories that follow characterization one likes in favor of one they don't.
To say "those stories will always exist" isn't really a factor, the point is that the decision is taking away from an element of the character that some people liked in favor of a new direction.
For instance OMD, yeah you've got 20 something years of stories with Peter and Mary Jane being a loving couple....and now you've destroyed that to take the character in a a direction completely absent of everything that relationship brought to that comic as well as a lot of other developments because that's not a tone editorial wanted anymore.
It's like a band you like shifting to a new genre in their prime that you don't like, yeah their old shit is there, but they abandoned something that worked for something that doesn't.
Character decisions for the worse can be made, and they can stick for interminable amounts of time because a string of hack writers.

>What even is your point, that people shouldn't be mad at poorly-written takes on characters they like? What a spineless mentality that would be.

That you shouldn't be attached to IPs.

>Those stories will always exist but sometimes major character decisions shift away from the creation of similar stories that follow characterization one likes in favor of one they don't.
And if you don't like it, don't watch it, support it, or read it.
>To say "those stories will always exist" isn't really a factor, the point is that the decision is taking away from an element of the character that some people liked in favor of a new direction.
And? The version you like will always be there.

I see these exact arguments made as far back as the 00s.

>And if you don't like it, don't watch it, support it, or read it.

That's why Marvel and DC sales are down.

>lol just dont
So, you really don't have a point, do you?

Nobody's forcing you to read fan complaints about how characters are mishandled, buddy.

Writers are writers. They aren't servers.

>And if you don't like it, don't watch it, support it, or read it.
I'm not, my criticism as to why I did so is still valid.
And they aren't above criticism.

>still no point
can you just go to /pol/ or Twitter if you're just angling want to grandstand? again, nobody's forcing you to participate in critical discussions on how characters are being handled.

>Writers are writers. They aren't servers.

That argument doesn't work because this isn't the 00s anymore.

>Criticsm
What kind of criticism is "Its not my preconceived notion of what I want it to be!"?
>still no point
My point is that fictional characters aren't real and writers can do what they want with them. Thinking otherwise is thinking that fan interpretation and headcanon can override authorial intent.

Attached: 1649976191457(1).jpg (3840x2160, 824.18K)

>My point is that fictional characters aren't real and writers can do what they want with them.
Nobody said anything to the contrary. You're just literal just upset that people are being critical of adaptations they don't like.

>You're just literal just upset that people are being critical of adaptations they don't like.
No, I'm getting frustrated at the idea that there's such a thing as "character assassination" for fictional characters that aren't real and do nothing to affect your enjoyment of the parts of a series that you like.

He probably grew on the idea of making his own characters since it gave him and Gibbons more freedom.

In this case, their minimal meddling at the outset caused improvement.
Watchmen would not have fully possible with the Charlton characters.
No, it would have been weaker.

Imagine if DC wasn't so shortsighted and didn't dick over Moore at every opportunity. Maybe Moore would have written them more Watchmen-level successes and he wouldn't be so bitter about the industry that he gives up the medium entirely like he's done.

no, it likely would have been better if it used dc characters. moore only changed because dc suits didn't want their superhero continuities to get ruined, ironic considering what you're arguing

>No, I'm getting frustrated at the idea that there's such a thing as "character assassination" for fictional characters that aren't real
A beloved take on a character can certainly be assassinated in a future story. Just because you're hung up on
>muh not real people
doesn't make that untrue--and doesn't undo the frustration over the incompetently-received take on a character deemed well-written.